Learning from peers: Creating a fairer working environment for MPs with disabilities in the House of Commons

Despite the increasing gender and ethnic diversity among MPs, there has been less progress for other under-represented groups, including people with disabilities who account for 17 per cent of Britons but less than 1 per cent of MPs (Campbell and Heath 2019) – compared to 11 per cent of peers (Purvis 2014). It reflects the strength of voters’ (and of party selectorate’s) scepticism about disabled politicians’ effectiveness (Durose et al. 2011; Campbell and Cowley 2014). This belief reflects deeper-seated prejudices about capacity of disabled people in general (Deal 2006). It is also reinforced by perceptions of institutional barriers – from issues of access to political communication – that hinder a disabled politician’s participation, thus, making them undesirable candidates (Durose et al. 2011). As a result, most candidates are reluctant to declare disability for fear of electoral penalty, thus, making disability almost invisible in the Commons, which only reinforces the idea that disabled people make for inadequate representatives. Disabilities in the House of Lords, and adjustments to accommodate disabled Peers, are more common stemming from the relatively high average age of peers associated with age-related physical and mental health conditions (Crewe 2005; Purvis 2014). The absence of electoral barriers to entry and life peerages encourages the House’s focus on enabling full participation of peers who are there to stay. There are opportunities for the House of Commons to learn from the Lords about how to accommodate disabled MPs while challenging preconceptions about the capacities of disabled politicians. This paper aims to identify which practices hinder and enable disabled parliamentarians in both Houses and examine which of them are present in the Lords but not in the Commons – and vice versa. The project will then explore what practices and how can be integrated into the work of the House of Commons and the UK Parliament at large. This research with will be undertaken within the UK’s Parliamentary Academic Fellowship Scheme hosted by the Centre of Excellence for Procedural Practice.